Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database does not contain direct head-to-head benchmark runs for these two integrated graphics solutions. However, the raw specification data allows for a clear arithmetic comparison of their theoretical peak capabilities, which serves as a reliable baseline for expected performance differences.

The most decisive gap appears in raw compute throughput. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile produces 384.0 GFLOPS. This represents a 4.67x advantage for the Arc part, a massive delta that will dominate any compute-bound workload. The FP16 numbers follow the same pattern: 3.584 TFLOPS for the Arc versus 768.0 GFLOPS for the 24EU part, again a 4.67x ratio. Both parts use a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, so the relative gap remains constant across precision levels.

Pixel throughput tells a similar story but with an even larger differential. The Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile sustains 28.00 GPixel/s, while the 24EU part manages only 4.000 GPixel/s. That is a 7x difference in fill rate. Texture rate shows the same 4.67x ratio as compute: 56.00 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s. These figures indicate that the Arc part will handle resolution scaling and texture-heavy scenes far more comfortably, while the 24EU part will struggle at higher settings.

Clock behavior reinforces the gap. The Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile boosts to 1750 MHz, whereas the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile tops out at 1000 MHz. Both share a 300 MHz base clock, but the 75% higher boost ceiling on the Arc part contributes directly to its throughput advantage. The shading unit count doubles down on this: 512 shading units on the Arc versus 192 on the 24EU, a 2.67x difference in raw execution resources. Texture mapping units follow with 32 versus 12, and the ROP count differs by 4x: 16 ROPs on the Arc versus 4 ROPs on the 24EU.

Memory configuration is identical in concept: both use system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth figure. No specific bandwidth number is recorded for either part, so the practical impact of memory performance cannot be quantified here. The bottleneck for both will be system memory bandwidth, but the Arc part's much higher internal throughput means it will saturate that shared bandwidth more quickly and benefit more from a fast dual-channel memory configuration.

Both parts sit at the 50th percentile in the database's all-GPU ranking, which reflects their position as integrated solutions rather than discrete competitors. Neither has recorded benchmark scores or listed nearest rivals, so the comparison rests entirely on the documented specification deltas. The data indicates a clear hierarchy: the Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is the substantially stronger part, and the 24EU Mobile serves a much more limited role.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is the superior part in every measurable category. It offers 4.67x the FP32 compute, 4.67x the FP16 compute, 7x the pixel fill rate, 4.67x the texture rate, 2.67x the shading units, 2.67x the texture mapping units, 4x the ROPs, and a 75% higher boost clock. The 65 W TDP reflects this capability, while the 24EU part draws only 6 W.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is not a competitor to the Arc part; it is a different class of product entirely. Its 6 W TDP and 1000 MHz boost clock position it for ultra-low-power, fanless or passively cooled designs where battery life and thermal envelope take priority over graphics performance. The Arc part's 65 W TDP requires active cooling and a more substantial power delivery system, which limits it to larger laptops or devices with robust thermal solutions.

The choice between these two is determined by the intended platform, not by performance preference. Systems targeting light productivity, basic video playback, and minimal 2D acceleration will find the 24EU part sufficient. Systems that need playable frame rates in lighter 3D titles, hardware-accelerated content creation, or smoother UI rendering at higher resolutions should select the Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile. The data does not support any scenario where the 24EU part outperforms the Arc part, so the only reason to choose it is power budget.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different Intel architectures and chips. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Meteor Lake chip, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture on the Twin Lake chip. Both are manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, so the process node does not explain the performance gap. The difference lies in the scale of the execution units and the architectural generation.

The Arc part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation for Meteor Lake, a product line that carries the Arc branding and targets more capable integrated graphics. The 24EU part belongs to the HD Graphics-T generation for Twin Lake, which sits in the long-running HD Graphics lineup. The Arc part lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor, confirming that Intel positions these as successive tiers rather than direct rivals.

Both parts share the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither records dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores in the database, so any ray tracing or AI acceleration claims cannot be substantiated from this data. The bus interface is Ring Bus for both, and display outputs are portable device dependent for both, meaning the actual display connectivity depends on the host laptop design.

The Arc part carries 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 24EU part carries 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The "EU" in both names refers to execution units, and the naming convention reflects the count: 64 EUs versus 24 EUs. The shading unit count (512 versus 192) aligns with an 8x multiplier per EU, which is consistent with Intel's Xe architecture layout. The TMU and ROP counts scale proportionally with the EU count, though the ROP difference is proportionally larger than the EU difference.

Both parts rely on system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM. Memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as system shared or system dependent. This means the memory subsystem performance is entirely a function of the host platform's memory configuration, and no independent memory clock or bus width data exists for either part.

The release dates differ by roughly a year: the Arc part launched on 2023-12-13, while the 24EU part launched on 2024-12-31. Both are listed as active production parts, so neither is discontinued or legacy.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.584 TFLOPS FP16, versus 384.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 768.0 GFLOPS FP16 for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. That is a 4.67x advantage in both precision levels.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: Both parts share a 300 MHz base clock. The Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile boosts to 1750 MHz, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile boosts to only 1000 MHz, a 75% higher boost ceiling for the Arc part.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has a 65 W TDP, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a 6 W TDP. The 24EU part consumes roughly one eleventh of the power budget.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no difference in API feature levels recorded in the database.

Q: Which architecture does each GPU use?

A: The Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses Xe-LPG on the Meteor Lake chip. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses Xe-LP on the Twin Lake chip. Both are built on Intel's 10 nm process.

Q: Are these parts still in production?

A: Yes, both are listed as active production parts. The Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile launched on 2023-12-13, and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile launched on 2024-12-31.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile wins in every recorded performance category. Its 7x higher pixel rate (28.00 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s) makes it the clear choice for any workload that stresses fill rate, such as high-resolution rendering or games with heavy post-processing effects. Its 4.67x higher texture rate (56.00 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s) gives it a strong advantage in texture-bound scenes and 3D applications. Its 4.67x compute advantage (1.792 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS) makes it suitable for compute tasks like video encoding, image processing, and light 3D rendering, whereas the 24EU part would take roughly four and a half times longer for the same workload.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins only in power efficiency. Its 6 W TDP versus 65 W TDP means it can be deployed in platforms where the thermal and power budget cannot accommodate the Arc part. The 24EU part is the appropriate choice for ultraportable devices, fanless designs, or systems where the integrated GPU is a secondary concern and battery longevity dominates the design brief. Its 1000 MHz boost clock and 4 ROPs are sufficient for basic desktop compositing, video playback, and lightweight 2D acceleration, but the data shows no scenario where it matches the Arc part's performance.

The Arc part's 512 shading units and 16 ROPs make it the better match for any gaming use case, even at low settings. The 24EU part's 192 shading units and 4 ROPs will limit it to very old titles or very low resolutions. For content creation, the Arc part's FP32 and FP16 throughput allow for real-time previews and accelerated exports, while the 24EU part will be a bottleneck. For everyday productivity, both parts handle basic tasks, but the Arc part provides smoother UI rendering and faster response in GPU-accelerated applications.

The memory situation is identical for both: system shared, system dependent bandwidth. Neither has a dedicated memory bus, so the host platform's memory configuration determines the effective bandwidth. In a system with fast dual-channel memory, the Arc part benefits more because its internal throughput is high enough to take advantage of the available bandwidth. In a system with single-channel or slower memory, both parts will be limited, but the Arc part loses more of its theoretical advantage.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses the Meteor Lake chip with Xe-LPG architecture and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Twin Lake chip with Xe-LP architecture and belongs to the HD Graphics-T generation.

Compute resources differ significantly: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the Arc part versus 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs on the 24EU part. The Arc part achieves 28.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 56.00 GTexel/s texture rate, while the 24EU part achieves 4.000 GPixel/s and 12.00 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1.792 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS, and FP16 throughput is 3.584 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Clock speeds differ: both have a 300 MHz base clock, but the Arc part boosts to 1750 MHz versus 1000 MHz for the 24EU part. TDP differs by an order of magnitude: 65 W versus 6 W. Both use Ring Bus interface, system shared memory, and portable device dependent display outputs. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Arc part launched on 2023-12-13 and lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor. The 24EU part launched on 2024-12-31 and has no recorded predecessor. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP, die size, transistor count, or power connector requirement. Both are active production parts, both are IGP slot width, and neither has recorded dimensions. The process node is 10 nm for both, and the foundry is Intel for both.